Here is what not to do or say if you shoot a burglar...geeez !

[joshuabardwell]

I dunno..........the jury will have to decide, but, if that boy used his martial arts on previous victims(or even threatened to use them on this homeowner) of home invasions that we aren't aware of yet...........that could change things quickly.

For the boy's knowledge of martial arts to be relevant in a shooting case, it would have to be shown that the shooter knew of the training at the time that he made the decision to fire. When determining whether a homicide was justifiable, the only facts that can be considered is things that the shooter actually knew or reasonably believed. So, for example, hypothetically, if a person pointed a replica gun at you and you shot them in self defense, the shooting might be justifiable, because at the time of the shooting you reasonably believed that the threat was real, and you did not know that the gun was a replica. By the same token, if a guy who intends to rob you comes up to you with a gun in his pocket and asks, "Hey buddy. Got the time?" And you shoot him, that shooting may be judged to be non-justifiable, because at the time you shot him, you had no reason to believe that you were under threat--even if, later, it turns out that you might have been right.

Now, in reality, would a prosecutor or a jury let the latter case slide? Perhaps. Perhaps you could argue that, although you hadn't seen the gun, the guy had a threatening demeanor. The fact that you turned out to be right will probably be persuasive. But getting back to the case at hand: if the boy knew martial arts, the man will have to demonstrate that he was aware of that knowledge, and how that knowledge related to the threat that caused the man to fear for his life.

 

[CurlyDave]

There are some links in this article that indicate there were audio and video recordings of the incident, and quote some of the audio. Pretty grim. I predict this guy's goose is cooked. The title of the link: Recent coverage: Little Falls shooting

Some of the audio is incriminating, some is exculpatory.

A good defense lawyer will point out that he knew he had multiple intruders, and once they break in he has the right to expect that they are bent on doing him physical harm of some type.

In this instance, preparing the basement so that he can reduce their numerical advantage as they come down the stairs is just plain old good tactics. It is a life and death situation as far as he knows, and if he can pick them off one by one, his own odds of survival increase with each intruder removed.

A decent attorney can also point out that a wounded opponent should not ever be left alive during an attack. He is not a medical expert and can not tell if they might only be temporarily incapacitated and may well revive and attack him from behind. He has seen two intruders, but can anyone tell that there are only two? Could a third or even a fourth man have avoided his cameras?

I believe it is possible to explain almost everything he did as a rational decision or action if he believed there were more intruders.

The hard to explain part is waiting 24 hours to call the police.

* * * * * *

Think about this in another way.

A marine is isolated and he hears enemy soldiers approaching his position. He cleverly hides and sets up a trap for them. Then he kills two of them and escapes with his life. Should he get a medal or a court martial? I would vote for the medal every time.

 

[Combustix]

Curly Dave that last part works well if you live in a war zone. I gotta say bad analogy.

Gotta wonder if the good china from Walmart is worth taking two lives. Why not yell I'm armed you better leave. And if they don't then you can figure they are there to cause you harm. Plus he had video, why shoot when you can identify later. This is great ammo for the antis and we are going to be under the gun ( pun intended) after Connecticut